Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[Soon]

I was just reading the comments on Queerty about this case and here is one that I thought was interesting:

@peteNsfo:
Actually, Texas law has been amended since the Littleton vs. Prange decision:
(I'm quoting Cristan Williams the head of Houston's Trans Center)

"In 2009, lawmakers (in H.B. No. 3666) changed the Texas family code to permit an applicant for a marriage license to use a sex change court order to nullify the birth certificate gender.

Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:
(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;"
I suspect Nikki's admission that her and her husband got married shortly before she had her SRS is going to sink her claim they were legally married.


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefigh...#ixzz0ucE1Zqy2


Here is the act that pertains to this case:

AN ACT
relating to the application for and issuance of a marriage license.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.002, Family Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:

.........

(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;

---------------


Here's another article about the case from TGctr.org (Houston based)

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I was just reading the comments on Queerty about this case and here is one that I thought was interesting:

@peteNsfo:
Actually, Texas law has been amended since the Littleton vs. Prange decision:
(I'm quoting Cristan Williams the head of Houston's Trans Center)

"In 2009, lawmakers (in H.B. No. 3666) changed the Texas family code to permit an applicant for a marriage license to use a sex change court order to nullify the birth certificate gender.

Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:
(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;"
I suspect Nikki's admission that her and her husband got married shortly before she had her SRS is going to sink her claim they were legally married.


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefigh...#ixzz0ucE1Zqy2


Here is the act that pertains to this case:

AN ACT
relating to the application for and issuance of a marriage license.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.002, Family Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:

.........

(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;

---------------


Here's another article about the case from TGctr.org (Houston based)

Her marriage was legal in the state of TX when she was married. Her surgery has nothing to do with her legal status as female. Her birth certificate had been changed...as had her other documentation.

Both she and the marriage were legal according to TX law.

This is something TX does a lot to transpeople. They give you legal status as the gender you are...but you have to 'behave'.

The Littleton case is a ridiculous case, and frankly it's too deep for me to get into here.

Also, about the husband's family saying this is 'for the children'. They're original petition for the injunction says NOTHING about the children. Additionally, they're not ONLY fighting for the widow benefits rightly due Nikki; they want the ENTIRE estate. All 600,000$ of the estate she's built with her husband. She was also the primary breadwinner. This is a case of greed, pure and simple. Three weeks ago, the husband's parents were taking the ex wife to court and smearing her name, in the custody battle. Now, they are siding with the ex wife to get the house, property, bank accounts, etc. The family also didn't make this 'all about the children' until yesterday when it was brought up in court.

On top of that, they've frozen a separate life insurance policy the husband took out in which he SPECIFICALLY named Nikki the beneficiary. This woman is living strictly on donations.

Here's a youtube of what's REALLY going on...as opposed to what the media is representing



Also, here's the transphobic interview that was conducted by a local television station. Be forewarned, this interview is extremely transphobic, and it was very difficult for me (personally) to watch.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id...dicate&section


This woman needs support right now. She needs financial support, and community support.

TransTexans are going to be greatly impacted by what happens with this case. This is extremely important to all transpeople in this state. The Littleton case has been used against us in a number of ways (not limited to marriage). It has even been used to deny us simple things like name changes.

The Texas Legislature came back after Littleton and in direct response to Littleton with amendments to Texas Family Code that allowed transpeople to use amended birth certificates and other documentation...because the Littleton ruling was so ridiculous.

Also, when the media states the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the Littleton case, they are LYING. The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

To recap. This marriage was LEGAL in the state of Texas according to Texas Family Code. She was also LEGALLY female when they were married. "The" surgery <gag> is NOT a precursor to having your b.c. changed and/or SSA, DL, etc.

It would be nice if we could JUST give this woman some support and really stop with the theorizing about What If and If Things Were This Way. It's insulting. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue.

But we DON'T live in a perfect world. We live in the here and now, and this woman doesn't need is more pontificating and theorizing about her life. This is happening NOW...with the laws enacted NOW.

She needs support...as does the entire Texas trans community. This is a case that is going to have LONG lasting impacts on our actual LIVED lives RIGHT NOW.

Please help with support and listening...and please realize that what you're hearing on the major media is HIGHLY biased.


Dylan

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Dylan

It would be nice if we could JUST give this woman some support and really stop with the theorizing about What If and If Things Were This Way. It's insulting. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue.

Dylan...I don't hear anyone here saying that she doesn't deserve support - myself included. I do hear people trying to understand the entire story and give other grieving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Let's not forget that the husband's parents are also grieving...this is their son that died after all.

I also hear a discussion about what we can do to protect the ones we love. I don't think that's out of place when we are seeing what can happen.

[Soon]

Hi Dylan,

When you write that Texas gives you legal status and grants marriage licences where one partner has legally changed their sex, (this is not the case in FL, btw), as long as they "behave"--do you mean that as long as a legal case doesn't come up challenging the validity of the marriage or their sex?

I mean, how legal is it if one has a custody/divorce/inheritance (etc.) case, and they revert back to the you are what you are born therefore it is invalid idea a la Littleton?

ETA: Thanks for the further info/clarifications and youtubes.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Dylan...I don't hear anyone here saying that she doesn't deserve support - myself included. I do hear people trying to understand the entire story and give other grieving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Let's not forget that the husband's parents are also grieving...this is their son that died after all.

I also hear a discussion about what we can do to protect the ones we love. I don't think that's out of place when we are seeing what can happen.

Jo,

You really think the parents deserve "the benefit of the doubt" when Ms. Araguz's assets have been frozen and her in-laws are fighting for all of her benefits and estate?

No snark--totally curious.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Jo,

You really think the parents deserve "the benefit of the doubt" when all of this woman's assets have been frozen and are fighting for her benefits and estate?

No snark--totally curious.

I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.

This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.

I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.

I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.

And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Hi Dylan,

When you write that Texas gives you legal status and grants marriage licences where one partner has legally changed their sex, (this is not the case in FL, btw), as long as they "behave"--do you mean that as long as a legal case doesn't come up challenging the validity of the marriage or their sex?

I mean, how legal is it if one has a custody/divorce/inheritance (etc.) case, and they revert back to the you are what you are born therefore it is invalid idea a la Littleton?

ETA: Thanks for the further info/clarifications and youtubes.

Yeah, you're legally whatever gender you say you are, and you can get married. BUT the second there's some kind of issue (inheritance, etc), they strip it all from you (legal status, marriage, etc).

The reason for this is because Littleton was such a ridiculous ruling. It was just absolutely ridiculous...to the point that the TX legislature, judges, etc knew it was ridiculous, so they responded. They responded by making TONS of changes to Texas Family Code, Texas Safety Code, and a few other places. The laws they made in direct response to Littleton granted rights to transpeople and made things like gender marker changes, marriage licenses, name changes, etc EASIER. Basically, whatever they could do to loosen up the laws, they did it.

A LOT of things in the state of Texas are based STRICTLY on the individual judge's decision. So, if you get a decent judge, there's actual statute law that *may* help out transpeople. However, if you get some shitstick, hillbilly judge...they can rely on Littleton (and they will pull it out for ANY damned thing they wish when it comes to transpeople).

Littleton states you are what your chromosomes say you are...except NO ONE gets a chromosome test. Littleton is complex because it steps over itself constantly. It says one thing in one part, and another thing in another part.

You can get a better idea of the how the laws are fucked up here in the Great State O' if you click here and then click on the link that says, "fascinating review of Texas case law".

Again, Littleton is really difficult to explain, because it's so confusing. And the judge basically brings up a lot of god.


Dylan

[Dylan]

Additionally, Nikki and her husband were NOT estranged or legally separated as has been reported in the media.


Dylan

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.

This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.

I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.

I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.

And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.

But, how can there be *sides* when, if Nikki was not trans, none of this would EVER be able to occur?

This case would not exist. She would be entitled to whatever assets/benefits any other wife would receive after her husband died. END OF.

I don't see the whole there are two sides to this story when, if this marriage was considered valid/legal, this fight to get her benefits would never even be able to be a logical or reasonable idea or thought.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

But, how can there be *sides* when, if Nikki was not trans, none of this would EVER be able to occur?

This case would not exist. She would be entitled to whatever assets/benefits any other wife would receive after her husband died. END OF.

I don't see the whole there are two sides to this story when, if this marriage was considered valid/legal, this fight to get her benefits would never even be able to be a logical or reasonable idea or thought.

People challenge inheritances all of the time - and assets are frozen until those cases are decided. I know this from my own family experience, in which there were no issues about gender or the legaility of any marriages. It was simply a plain old fight for the money.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

People challenge inheritances all of the time - and assets are frozen until those cases are decided. I know this from my own family experience, in which there were no issues about gender or the legaility of any marriages. It was simply a plain old fight for the money.

The SOLE reason her assets/benefits are frozen is because she is trans.

This case is built on that. If that didn't exist, the in-laws would not have no basis for a legal challenge.

It is not just another case of inheritance dispute based on in-fighting--it is entirely based on her transsexed history.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

The SOLE reason her assets/benefits are frozen is because she is trans.

This case is built on that. If that didn't exist, the in-laws would not have no basis for a legal challenge.

It is not just another case of inheritance dispute based on in-fighting--it is entirely based on her transsexed history.

I get what you're saying, but this is my point:

The husband's parents don't want her to inherit (clearly), so they have challenged her right to the estate.

Anyone can challenge an estate, for a whole variety of reasons.

If Nikki wasn't trans, they could challenge her right to inherit based on a variety of other grounds. They may not be true or fair or right, but they can do it - and the assets would be frozen until the case was decided.

Clearly, they are taking the fact that she is trans as their reason to challenge - and yes, that sucks.

We don't know the family or her. As much as we may feel sympathetic to her situation (and I do), we really don't know all the details of the relationships and history of this family.

It sounds like, from Dylan's post, what needs to change in Texas is legislation to prevent judges from being arbitrary in cases involving trans people.

[Soon]

Jo,

With your last post (eta: post #50), I am now upset and I just realized, among other reasons, why.

Your statements equating Nikki's plight to other generic legal challenges to inheritance reminds me of people who say to me--someone who is denied federal immigration rights based on DOMA AND FL's anti-trans laws--well, MANY people have trouble with immigration, not just you. Why don't you try to immigrate another way?

The reason I am not allowed to live here with my husband is because of specific laws that prevent it based on sex and gender. For people to equate it with others' immigration struggles is not valid b/c, if he was born male, I would have had legal status within a year of our marriage. No Question.

So too, the reason her benefits are being challenged is because of specific laws and precedents that are discriminatory based on her assigned birth sex. It is NOT some random family dispute! It is a challenge that can ONLY move forward due to discriminatory laws and precedents set against a certain segment of people.


It is not just like any other case because there would be no case if she had been assigned female at birth.

[Soon]

You know, I wonder if, Jo, you would be as willing to see the other (parents') side if it was some in-laws who swooped in after their lesbian daughter died to challenge/take all the property/assets from her wife?

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Jo,

With your last post (eta: post #50), I am now upset and I just realized, among other reasons, why.

Your statements equating Nikki's plight to other generic legal challenges to inheritance reminds me of people who say to me--someone who is denied federal immigration rights based on DOMA AND FL's anti-trans laws--well, MANY people have trouble with immigration, not just you. Why don't you try to immigrate another way?

The reason I am not allowed to live here with my husband is because of specific laws that prevent it based on sex and gender. For people to equate it with others' immigration struggles is not valid b/c, if he was born male, I would have had legal status within a year of our marriage. No Question.

So too, the reason her benefits are being challenged is because of specific laws and precedents that are discriminatory based on her assigned birth sex. It is NOT some random family dispute! It is a challenge that can ONLY move forward due to discriminatory laws and precedents set against a certain segment of people.


It is not just like any other case because there would be no case if she had been assigned female at birth.

I do see your point, and I feel that you are somehow thinking that I'm unsympathetic to the situation in this country. Believe me, I'm not.

I'm not actually saying it's the same, but I can also see that I'm not going to be able to explain it in a way that will be understood.

For the record, I get that trans people and gays are unfairly treated. I'm not saying we aren't. I'm not trans, but I do have a nasty ex-husband who may, at some point in the future, try to argue that I'm an unfit parent based solely on the fact that I love a woman. At that time, I will find myself in a legal battle too.

I am sympathetic. I'm just not seeing this the same way that you are.

I don't wish to continue to upset anyone, so I'll leave you all to this conversation.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

You know, I wonder if, Jo, you would be as willing to see the other (parents) side if it was some in-laws who swooped in after their lesbian daughter died to challenge/take all the property/assets from her wife?

I have little doubt that this will actually happen if my diabetes kills me young - and, no, I would still want everyone to try to understand every side before making a decision.

And, my apologies, I had already posted my previous post when I saw this.

[Dylan]

On another note. As Nikki left the courtroom yesterday a crowd of people followed her and yelled transphobic slurs at her and the people escorting her.

And again, this woman is now living strictly off of donations. She can't even stay in her house anymore because of this greedy and arbitrary use of a transphobic law.

If this judge upholds Littleton, trans people in this state are in for some serious ramifications.

The Littleton case has been used to invalidate completely valid marriages between transpeople, when one in the marriage didn't 'behave' themselves and keep it under their hats.

Again, the Littleton case has been used to deny transpeople the simplest of things...even name changes.



Dylan

[Dylan]

On top of all of that, the news in Houston ran a big story last night about Nikki's 'early years'. They included information about her arrest history, birth certificate, court hearings for name change/gender change, etc.

Yet, I have heard NOT ONE THING about the husband's family. NOT A THING. No delving into THEIR pasts, medical conditions, operations. NO discussions of what THEIR bits look like. NO TALK of THEIR criminal histories. NOTHING.

We barely even get to know their names. BUT...EVERYTHING about Nikki's life is fair game and newsworthy.


Blatant Transphobia,
Dylan

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Dylan

On top of all of that, the news in Houston ran a big story last night about Nikki's 'early years'. They included information about her arrest history, birth certificate, court hearings for name change/gender change, etc.

Yet, I have heard NOT ONE THING about the husband's family. NOT A THING. No delving into THEIR pasts, medical conditions, operations. NO discussions of what THEIR bits look like. NO TALK of THEIR criminal histories. NOTHING.

We barely even get to know their names. BUT...EVERYTHING about Nikki's life is fair game and newsworthy.


Blatant Transphobia,
Dylan

I just watched a clip that a news station uncovered from over ten years ago with the newscaster saying, "Remember, Nikki was born male!" and part two will include a discussion of how DOES Nikki look so feminine?

They are positively fascinated by the freakishness that Nikki signifies to them with the subtext being: "Wow, look at the pretty psuedo-girl! You could be *fooled* too!"

ugh.

[Boots13]

This is heartwrenching.

And another absolutely outrageous example of bias by the
community and goldigging by the ex.

I cant imagine the emotional trauma and anguish this woman is going through.